DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TOPLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE ANDMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Delia Lovell

in her official capacity as President and C.E.O.,

Endara Enterprises, LLC

225 N Common Street

Shreveport, Louisiana 71101

Phone | Fax

Email

In pro per

STATE OF WISCONSIN

LA CROSSE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

NOW COMES Defendant, Endara Enterprises, and filed this Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In support, Defendant respectfully offers the following for consideration by the Court:

1. Summary judgment is “an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to secure the just, speedy an inexpensive determination of every action.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986).
2. Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on motion of a party, the court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
3. The non-moving party must “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
4. Further, “one may not oppose a properly supported summary judgment motion by mere reliance on their pleadings.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.
5. Instead, the non-movant must present “concrete evidence supporting their claims.” Cloverdale Equip. Co. v. Simon Aerials, Inc., 869 F.2d 934, 937 (6^th Cir. 1989).
6. Defendant would like to show this Court that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact of this case. Plaintiff has ignored some facts which are crucial to this case and which determine its outcome. 
7. On Insert Date, Delia Lovell bought the Defendant company from Insert Seller’s Name. At the time of selling the Defendant company, Insert Seller’s Name had closed all the accounts the Defendant company had with Plaintiff. (Exhibit A). However, agent(s) or employee(s) of Plaintiff still kept former accounts of the Defendant company open and continued to place invoices on them.
8. Since Insert Seller’s Name closed the Defendant company’s accounts with Plaintiff, there should be no invoices being charged on those accounts.  This is because there is no activity under those accounts. That Plaintiff charged invoices on closed accounts that had no activity amounts to fraud.
9. On 09/24/2018, Delia Lovell submitted an application for an account with Plaintiff’s food service. In the application, Delia requested a credit limit of $2,000 per week, amounting to $8,000 per month. (Exhibit B). Plaintiff never supplied Defendant with a Credit Approval, as it was required. 
10. Delia went to check the status of her application and found that Plaintiff was sending invoices that did not belong to Defendant. The invoices indicated amounts more than $25,000 per month, while Delia had requested a credit limit amounting to only $8,000 per month. Not only did Plaintiff fail to send Defendant a Credit Approval, but also invoiced Defendant exorbitant amounts not requested by Delia.
11. There is a clear attempt by Plaintiff to use this Court’s process to unjustly enrich itself by obtaining damages from Defendant in the form of unauthorized payments invoiced to Defendants. It would be totally unfair and contrary to justice to require Defendant to pay Plaintiff the requested amounts because Plaintiff invoiced them without the knowledge or consent of Defendant or its agent(s). 
12. Defendant has provided evidence to support the claims made in this Response.
13. In Matter of Holiday’s Tax Services, Inc., 417 F. Supp. 182 – Dist. Court, ED New York 1976, the court held that “the danger sometimes pointed to, that these small corporations might be encouraged to bring frivolous suits if they had no need for an attorney, seems trifling. As one of the handful of cases which broke with precedent in the Great Depression noted: The dangers pointed to in these arguments are more theoretical than substantial. Few corporations will do without the services of licensed attorneys in their litigation. In our opinion an argument on the other side far outweighs those mentioned above. It appears when we ask ourselves this question: Suppose a corporation were too impoverished to employ a lawyer to defend it, or suppose it had a large claim it believed to be just but could find no lawyer who would take the case, believing it to be hopeless, should the corporation be denied its day in court?”
14. At this moment, Endara Enterprises, LLC is not in a position to find an attorney to defend it in this matter. Endara Enterprises, LLC is a corporation owned by only one member, Delia Lovell. She is the President and CEO of the company. On all occasions and engagements with Plaintiff, Delia Lovell acted on behalf of Endara Enterprises, LLC. She is the only one who can act on behalf of Endara Enterprises, LLC at this moment. It would be unfair to deny Endara Enterprises, LLC a chance to be heard in this matter because the company is unable to obtain an attorney to represent it, and yet it is a single-member corporation. 

REASONS WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant the following reliefs:

1. Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment because there exists a genuine dispute as to the material facts of this case;
2. Award Defendant such equitable relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances; and
3. Award Defendant such further relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper.

Dated this day of Month, year.

VERIFICATION

I, Delia Lovell, being duly sworn depose and say that I am the President and C.E.O. acting on behalf of Endara Enterprises, LLC, the Defendant Company in the above entitled action, that I have read the foregoing Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and know the contents thereof. That the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.

_________________________________

(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)

Sworn to and subscribed before me this _____ day of ____________________, 2021.

______________________________

Notary Public

________________________________________

(Printed name of Notary Public)

My Commission Expires: ____________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent on the (Date) day of (Month) (Year) by regular U.S. mail, by facsimile, or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following parties or attorneys of record:

Philip James Addis, Attorney at Law

Attorney for the Plaintiff,

Reinhart Foodservice, LLC

State Bar No. 1010642

504 Main Street, Suite 200

P.O. Box 1104

La Crosse, WI 54602-1104

(608) 784-1355

Dated this day of Month, year.